the Conference, whose assent to so radical a policy of free trade was accorded for the purpose of the moment only, and while the great question of civilising Central African tribes dominated their early aims even to the disadvantage of the correlated questions of commerce. Article III. of the General Act, therefore, provided that: “Wares of whatever origin, imported into these regions, under whatsoever flag, by sea or river, or overland, shall be subject to no other taxes than such as may be levied as fair compensation for expenditure in the interest of trade, and which for this reason must be equally borne by the subjects themselves and by foreigners of all nationalities.” The reasons actuating the Berlin Conference not to fix the rate of such taxation as it provided for at the Brussels Conference, are clearly indicated on page 85 of the protocols to the General Act, from which the following declaration is quoted: The rate of the taxes of compensation is not fixed in any definite manner. The support of foreign capital ought to be placed, with commercial freedom, amongst the most useful aids to the spirit of enterprise, whether it has reference to the execution of works of public interest or whether it has in view the development of the cultivation of the natural products of the African soil. But capital only goes, in general, to places where the risks are sufficiently covered by the chances of profit. The Commission has therefore thought that there would result more disadvantages than advantages from binding too strictly, by restrictions arranged in advance, the liberty of action of public powers or of concessions. If abuses should arise, if the taxes threatened to attain an excessive rate, the cure would be found in the interest of the authorities or of the contractors, seeing that commerce, as experience has more than once proved, would turn away from establishments the access to, or use of which, had been rendered too burdensome. That contribution by traders to the maintenance of the State under a system of taxation and police regulation is not incompatible with commercial freedom was forcibly reiterated at the Conference by Count de Launay and, of course, by other members who at all dwelt upon a principle so well established. Treating this question with much erudition, Baron Descamps cites the French law of March 2, 1791, relating to patents, which, he says, “gave the most emphatic assent of modern times to the principle of commercial freedom. The very clause proclaiming freedom of commerce provided for licence dues! Thus: ‘Everybody shall be free to carry on any business he chooses; [_sic_] but he must first obtain, and pay for, a licence, and submit to any regulations of police that may be made.’”[10] [Sidenote: The Open Door and Chaos.]